The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-01-22
GRAVE CHARGE BY GEORGE
Against Archbishop CorrIgan, of
New York C1iy

New York Ct'y.
Henry George in his paper, the
Standard, OF le 10Th instaI L. says:
1t may be news TO lhs general pub
lie, but it lie, nevertheless, a fsct that
Archbishop CoFrigan, in the lat cleo.
tion, NJ only wanted TO defeat GER
tain candidate, but also wanted to do.
feat the call for comet tltional con-
veption; that letters from him were
sent tn rriests telling then t) work
against the convection, aud tnat at a
t1erlng where one Of these prie, IS
eudsavored to carry ont tli5 instl uc-
ton, q proposlt on was made - g t
hold oI the bags COZ tiininR the bal
lots in favor of the con ttutonal
convention, and by making away
W Ia them, 10 lessen the vote in its
favor. Suppo ling any priest to whom
this srchiepiscopsl order had come
hsd refused to obey it? Are the
journals which contend that the Arch
bishop ie quite right in suspending
DR.. MEG iynn and having him ordered
to Rome prepared TO make the claim
Inst the Archbishop would have been
equally justifi 30 in similarly publishing
euch priest who refused to opp )se
the calling Of constitutional conven-
tiOn2
TRere are two distinct things in this
controversy which have got somewhat
mixed in tue newspapers, but which
it is important to distinguish-that is
to say,
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE PROPAGANDA
and the Archbishop Of New York.
They have become somewhat con-
fused, because the Archbish lp 10 his
crusade against DR.. McGlynn has seen
Gt to fall back for excuse upon mis-
sves received from Rome by his pre-
decsssor. The congreg ,tion of the
Propaganda in Rome lie, OF cjurse, the
center of the ecclesiastical tyranny
which now seeks to coercs American
priests, as 1t has at various times
sought to coerce the priests OF Ireland.
But in the case OF DR.. McGlynn it 10
evident that In both instances Rome
has simply been u'ed-ln 1882 by the
British Envoy Erington, and In 1885
by Archbishop C1rrigau, evidently at
the instance or under the influence OF
the Tammanv ring. 1t ia notorious
that in New York the Catholic Church
has for a long series OF years been
more or less
ALLIED WITH TAMMANY,
and thai this influence, for which
qlid pro quo has been paid by grants
OF public property at nominal prcss
and lavish appropriat ons OF puOlic
money, has bsen one Of the many
sourc OF the strength OF the rings
that in this city have degraded tue
name of Democracy. The raising OF
head, the rolling OF eyes aid the
calculations OF sacrilege when re-
porter of the Telegram asked some OF
The ssChems OF lammany whe her
they had passed resolution prompt.
ing the Archbishop to suspend DR..
McGlynn, are refreshing. OF course
such things are not done by resolu-
ton, but there are olher ways in
which they can bs done, all the same.
And this Is significant, that
ARCHBISHOP CoRRIGAN
had no obi ctions to DR.. MCGlynn
making any number OF speeches for a
candidsts indorsed by Tammanv, and
that his Conct rn about DR.. MCGlynn's
opinions upon the land question did
not manifest itself until new party
had Grisen which threatened to pre-.
vent the certain victory that Tsmmsny
had thought within its grasp. With
the alarm OF Tammany me Arch
bishops concern about DR.. MCG.ynn's
economic opinions began, ju't as the
concern OF the Propaganda began
when Dr.. McGlynn, in 1882, raised in
the Units d StItes, whence the mater
ial supplies Of ths Irith Land League
were coming, the standard watch Irish
landIordism most fears and which the
English land ord government thought
they hsd succeeded in lowering in lra-
land. Bat that the things are really
II dependent of each other is shown
by the fac, that
DR. kC0LTgs
was not the cnly pies. who was pro.